Category: SMEs

Following our previous publication on data processing, this article will address the issue of the first few small repercussions of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter ‘GDPR’) on the online world.

In that same aforementioned article, the author rightly stated that companies should hurry up for compliance, as time was running out and the road to achieving full compliance is a very long one (depending on the activity the company carries out, obviously!). One would think that now, approaching the end of the first decade of June 2018, most businesses have already taken care of the privacy matter, in light of its pivotal importance. Well, as we all know, that is not true (not for everyone, at least).

This article is intended to provide a useful overview of important aspects not only for European SMEs but also for Latin American companies operating in the European Union (EU), since one of the highlights of the new regulation is its broadened scope: it is applicable to all companies in the world that handle personal data from European customers, even if the processing takes place outside of the EU.

Preliminarily, it is worth noting that in contrast to the European Union, at present, Latin America has no harmonised legislation on data and privacy, due to different national legislations. This inevitably leads to different levels of protection, all of them still considerably lower than the EU standards (i.e. Guatemala, for instance, still lacks a specific legislation on data protection).

Bearing this in mind, the Latin American region is making serious efforts to respond to the demands of today’s global market. Notwithstanding the current situation, through the Ibero-American Data Protection Network (RIPD) some regional standards have been set as a reference for future implementations. There is still a long way to go and striking differences between countries yet remain. However, it must be acknowledged that Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay and Chile stand out for their domestic legislations on the matter, by virtue either of their age or the existence of local authorities specialized in data protection.

Indeed, all these relative progresses both national and regional, have been developed in accordance with the model established by the EU-GDPR. Therefore, these countries are likely aware of the need to bring Latin American legislation in line with Europe’s in order to attract foreign investment and create a better climate for European SMEs.

Let’s quickly analyse the GDPR: the main changes concern the personal data definition, the increased territorial scope, the penalties, the consent, the newly introduced rights (to access, to be forgotten, data portability), the immediate (within 72 hours) and compulsory data breach notification and, finally, the introduction of the Data Protection Officers (DPO – compulsory only in some cases). Furthermore, companies need to comply with the definitions of ‘Privacy by design’ and ‘Privacy by default’ when dealing with personal data.

Certainly, it can be affirmed that consent is at the very centre of this legislation. The Consent has to be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous”, “clearly distinguishable, intelligible and using clear and plain language”, according to, respectively, articles 4 and 7 of the GDPR.

Prior to this introduction, privacy had not been changed this radically for over 20 years and the “data market” was ‘wild’ and uncontrolled. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy lawyer, filed a complaint in 2013 against Mark Zuckerberg’s social network Giant due to the lack of Privacy compliance by Facebook. In his unveiling to the general public, Mr Schrems disclosed 1,200 pages of data that Facebook possessed on him and proved the flaws of the social network’s privacy policy (and its consequent conduct) to be enormous. As an example, prior to those decisions, Facebook would transmit personal data to app developers, with no reason or legally obtained consent. The ‘profiling’ (“any form of automated processing of personal data consisting of the use of personal data to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural person”, as defined by article 4 GDPR) was an activity that allowed Facebook to provide Page Managers with users’ precise information for the advertisement targeting. Advertising was a very relevant source of income for Mark Zuckerberg’s tech Giant.

We are only a few days away the entry into force of the new GDPR and the email boxes of half the planet have been filled up with newsletters, data processing requests, “We care about your privacy” statements and so forth. Notwithstanding, when analysing those emails, not all of them appear to be fully compliant and actually, most of them, have not achieved the ‘simplification’ requirement of privacy law, which was one of the many targets of the GDPR. In fact, emails with excessive material and written in “legalese” (technical-juridical language) do not allow the consent to be informed for the majority of the public, due to the extremely complex language used by the policies.

This new regulation has re-shaped the online (and offline) world, as we have moved from an (online) environment with full access to websites and limitless actions available, to almost completely blocked websites until full GDPR compliance is achieved. To this regard, in these days, when accessing websites, very disturbing banners do not allow the correct displaying of the website (or will ‘bother’ you until you click “I agree”). Additionally, if you are an ‘informed user’ and want to know the purposes of the processing of personal data on the accessed website, a “More information” button should be available (usually next to the “I agree” box) and you should be provided with full disclosure of the data processing carried out on such page. Normally, clicking on that button will redirect the user to a special page displaying the cookies implied (which can be essential, functional and targeting). That particular page is where your preferences will be saved by the “Controller” (the legal entity that determines the purposes of the processing) or the “Processor” (the legal entity that actually processes the data) so that each user’s data will (or will not) be processed and, especially, inform the user for what purposes.

Before the introduction of such law, privacy was almost “disregarded”, as it referred to lengthy and boring legislation with few implications. Nowadays, we can undoubtedly assert that there was – and there still is – indeed a big business on (personal) data used with no legitimate consent. The change derives from the concern that companies have developed about the newly regulated sanctions, in accordance with article 83(4) and 83(5) of the GDPR (20 Million or 4% of the global revenue – whichever is higher – for the harshest fine and 10 million or 2% of the annual global revenue – again, whichever is higher).

In recent days, we have seen many blocked non-EU websites, which, prior to the entry into force of the GDPR, were accessible for European users. Many businesses from all over the world are still not yet compliant with the GDPR, mainly due to the investment required, both economically and in terms of time-management. Full compliance will come with time and dedication, and hopefully, companies that process big amounts of personal data will stop seeing it as an asset and start approaching it in a more intimate and personal manner. The temporary blockage of the access from the EU (until full compliance is achieved) has to be merely momentary, as the GDPR is an issue that has to be addressed compulsorily, as the repercussions can be relevant (sanctions). An incentive to avoid permanent blockage of the website to EU customers would be to avoid losing a considerable market share (significant to most businesses – 508 million inhabitants). As a suggestion, quick GDPR compliance companies have found a niche market at the moment (i.e.Trustarc or OneTrust); these provide a minimum level of compliance and allow to ‘buy’ some time in order to align the business to the newly introduced legislation.

In short: how can we know if the EU GDPR applies to my company?

Due to its wide range, it appears to be difficult not to be affected by the GDPR, but let us summarize in which cases it will be mandatory to implement its measures:

When the company tracks EU customers’ data;

When the company is based outside the EU but provides goods and/or services (even when free of charge) to EU customers;

EU-based companies’ data is collected and processed regardless of the place of collection. This means that EU SMEs operating in Latin America must comply, in any case, with the EU GDPR (even if the data comes from Latin-American customers only) due to the nationality of the company itself.

Generally, compliance is always suggested and carefulness is needed when processing any kind of personal data originating from the EU, so be carefully compliant!

The main aim of this new regulation is, not only to harmonize the different national regulations existing at European level, in order to guarantee equality on the protection of personal data regardless of the nationality or place of residence, but also to ensure a legal framework adapted to the digital era.

Because the implementation of the GDPR is almost upon us, companies need to hurry up if they want to comply with the new obligations arising from said Regulation. Among other aspects, EU companies should be aware of:

The need to comply with the principles of accountability and transparency. This involves quite a significant amount of documentation requirements. Other principles such as privacy by design and by default, must also be observed. This entails designing and implementing appropriate technical and organisational measures.

Making an analysis of the potential risks in order to find weaknesses in the treatments performed by the company as regards personal data management.

Obligation to provide, at the time of the collection, some information regarding the identity of the controller (i.e. who decides how and why such data is processed), the purposes of the processing, the legal basis for the processing, the period for which the personal data will be stored and, where applicable, if the controller intends to transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation.

Attend and inform the data subject (i.e. individuals whom the data is about) about several data protection rights such as the right to be forgotten, right to restriction of processing, right to object an automated individual decision-making or right to data portability.

Notify the supervisory authority about any breach regarding personal data (e.g. in Spain, the Spanish Data Protection Agency) without undue delay and, where feasible, no later than 72 hours after being aware of it.

Designate a Data Protection Officer, if the core activities of the company consist of processing operation which require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale or if the core activities of the company is to process special categories of data, as may be the case of business performing profiling activities.

And if the company processes personal data using new technologies, it will be necessary, prior to the processing, to carry out an assessment on the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the ability to ensure appropriate protection of personal data.

In Latin America, data protection is a very topical issue. One of the major developments in the region was the creation in 2003 of the Ibero-American Data Protection Network (RIPD). This network began with representatives of 14 Ibero-American governmental agencies and focused its first activities in trying to advance in the adoption of a new regulatory framework and implementation of data protection authorities in its member states.

After the advances in the legal and institutional fields, the network switched its focus to cooperation activities: exchange of information and experiences, as well as the development of common actions and policies.

In this context, and now enlarged to 21 member states, the RIPD has recently recognized in the “RIPD in 2020”, that there are some countries such as Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panamá, Paraguay and Venezuela, where an additional impulse regarding the legal framework is required.

Thanks to the RIPD’s labour, in June 2017 the “Ibero-American data protection Standards” was presented in Chile. Its main objective is to facilitate the flow of personal data, not only between Ibero-American states, but also beyond their borders, in order to foster innovation and economic growth in the region.

Those Standards were developed taking into consideration other international regulations, such as for instance the GDPR. It seems that one might say that the GDPR has a positive impact beyond the European borders, particularly in Ibero-American States; where the European example seems to inspire them to work towards homogeneous rules in the region facilitating the flow of personal data.

All the aforementioned, is important for European companies: if they are considering to transfer personal data to Latin-American companies, they will need to comply with the GDPR and, in particular:

Make sure that the third country where the company towards which personal data will be transferred is located in a country that ensures an adequate level of protection according to the European Regulation. Currently only Uruguay and Argentina comply with this requirement.

In the absence of the above, it could be possible to guarantee appropriate safeguards through binding corporate rules or standard data protection clauses.

Otherwise, companies could try to have the data transfer covered by one of the exceptions provided in article 49 GDPR: for example, because they have obtained explicit consent from the owner or because the transfer is necessary for the conclusion of a contract.

To sum up, if your company is considering transferring personal data from Europe to Latin America your company must comply with the GDPR. Do not forget it! Time goes by and 25 May 2018 is there!

In the last years, we have noticed in Europe an increase in the number of fraudulent invoices being sent to users relating to trademarks or patents applications. If you receive an invoice that is unexpected or from an unfamiliar entity, please contact your Industrial Property (IP) Office or attorney before paying the invoice.

While many of the fraudulent invoices are sent via regular mail, some are sent by email. In Brazil, for instance, users are also receiving phone calls from people pretending that they belong to the legal department of the IP Office and that the applicant is at risk of losing his trademark. Typically, the invoices seek payment for various services related to applications: registration fees, filing fees or monitoring fees.

Such invoices —which are intentionally designed to look like real invoices from an official source— have nothing to do with the processing of your patent application or trademark registration, and the services they purport to provide have no value beyond the services already provided by your national, regional office or an international organization, such as WIPO, EPO or EUIPO.

National Patent and Trademark offices, as well as relevant international organisations and user associations, are working to inform users about this trend and to help them avoid falling for such scams. For example, warnings have been posted on several websites that include names of known perpetrating “companies” and examples of misleading letters. The Trademark International Index and Trademark Info Corp. became very popular in Mexico a few years ago.

As regards criminal proceedings, the EUIPO closely cooperated with the Swedish public prosecutor’s office who brought to Court an extensive scam scheme principally targeting EUTM owners. The Court passed four custodial sentences ranging between two months and one year for four of the defendants for attempted aggravated fraud.

The more this practice spreads over the Latin American countries, (in Brazil has some significance), the more important it is for applicants of international trademarks or patents from these countries to be aware of this situation.

If you are a PCT or an International Trademark applicant and you receive one of these invoices, first check WIPO’S warning page and see if it matches any of the examples. If not listed there, send an e-mail to WIPO with a copy so it can be added to the collection.

If you registered by yourself, you are also recommended to contact the National Intellectual Property Office involved to be sure that there is no scam and make a complaint, if afirmative. Most of them provide assistance on this issue (i.e. Brazil), but if you want to know more about what to do in case you receive one of those invoices, do not hesitate to contact our free of charge, confidential, fast Helpline. Our experts will be happy to support you.

Spanish producers of “Turrón de Alicante” or “Sobrasada de Mallorca” fear no more! Producers of products protected under Geographical Indication in the European Union are getting closer and closer to have the protection of these Geographical Indications extended to Brazilian territory.

But what is a Geographical Indication? How can they benefit your business?

Geographical indications (GIs) are a specific Industrial Property Rights (IPRs) protecting products originating in a given geographical area whose quality or characteristics are due to a particular geographical environment (with its inherent natural and human factors) and all or part of the production steps taking place in the defined geographical area.

GIs involve regulating the already existing methods of production and traditions associated with the protected product so that only those companies producing or marketing products in compliance with the regulated standards can use the GI to distinguish their products. Unlike other categories of IPR, such as Patents (new inventions), Trademarks (new brand names) or Designs (new aesthetical characteristics), GIs do not require innovation. Instead, they tend to protect tradition (existing goods, existing methods of production and existing names of those goods) and are owned only in a collective manner.

GIs are a key tool for groups of SMEs producing local agri-food products in a defined geographical area. Indeed, consumer associate agri-foods with their place of origin and a certain guarantee of quality. In addition, their collective ownership and management (which fits with the nature of the rural and agricultural economy), the lack of innovation required and their commercial attractiveness make GIs one of the most suitable IP rights for agri-food SMEs.

In general, to register a GI you have to go through the following steps*:

1) Identify the specificity of the product, which may derive from its quality, characteristics or reputation.

2) Define the place, territory or region within which the product presents the specificity.

3) Identify the specific conditions of the geographical environment existing in the defined place, territory or region and make sure that the singularity of the product is essentially or exclusively due to those conditions.

4) Define and describe in detail the product and method of production.

5) Register the GI and enjoy the protection granted in the territory for which it has been registered.

GIs are still a sensitive subject. The first indicator is an international system of protection of GIs (Lisbon System). This system enables the applicant entity to obtain protection in several countries (as long as they are part of the Agreement) through a single application filed before the International Bureau. However, so far, this Agreement has had very limited success. In Latin America, only Cuba, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico and Peru are part of this system. As far as the EU is concern, only the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy and Slovakia have ratified the Agreement.

Secondly, GI owners might have to deal with the fact that Trademarks consisting of or containing the expression protected by the GI (in the country or territory of origin, e.g. the European Union) might have already been registered and/or used in connection with the same goods in third countries. Unfortunately, applicable Law in most Latin America grants priority to those earlier trademarks, unless you can prove that earlier trademarks are deceptive or were applied for in bad faith.

Thirdly, GIs protected in the EU and, consequently, identifying products originating from a specific area and complying with specific characteristics, may, however, be considered generic names in third countries (“Queso Parmesano” in Argentina, for example). In such cases, the offices of third country will deny registration of these Geographical Indications. In some cases, it is the own national legislations that assigned a generic nature to the. This is the case of the Argentinian Food Code, which assigns a generic nature to several GIs protected in the European Union, e.g.: “Turrón de Jijona”, “Turrón de Alicante”. In these cases, registration of the GI will only be possible if it is preceded by negotiations between both parties’ Governments aimed at the mutual recognition of GIs and the abolition of that regulation.

Finally, whereas producers in the EU can benefit from a single registration procedure (with unitary effects in all Member States), recognition of GIs in Latin American countries, in most cases, requires a separate procedure before each national competent authority

It is in this context that bilateral agreements, concluded between the EU and certain Latin American countries, establishing mutual recognition of GIs, become important. In particular, the EU has concluded agreements for mutual recognition of agricultural GIs with Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. We can now add Brazil to this list.

Indeed, as part of the negotiations between Europe and Brazil, in the framework of the MERCOSUR-EU negotiations, the Instituto Nacional da Propiedade Industrial (INPI) published the much-awaited Normative Instruction 79/2017. Take into account that this is all the more important since Brazil is not a member of the Lisbon Agreement or the Madrid System (for GIs protected through collective trademarks or certification mark). This Instruction, from October 30, established the first basis of this publication. The list of GIs was finally published on November 7, including well-known Geographical Indications, such as “Oporto” for Portugal, the Dutch “Gouda”, the Italian “Grana Padano” or even the French “Roquefort”. The list is accessible through INPI Brazil’s website. Be aware, though, that third parties have now 30 days to submit oppositions to the registration of these GIs in Brazil and you can expect opposition.

Take into account that producers are already commercializing most of these products in Brazil. Which leads to the following questions: how will the agrifood related industries be affected? Might this then generate some friction between local producers and GI’s owners in the EU? What EU Gi’s will be next? How will these IPR going to be really enforced? The situation will certainly lead to interesting developments and we will keep you informed from the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk.

Do you want to know how your business can benefit from Geographical Indications? Are you planning to commercialize your products in Latin America? Do you require further information on costs or proceedings before taking the decision? If so, do not hesitate to check the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk’s Factsheets on Geographical Indications (general or on Chile).

The EU-funded initiative will provide EU SMEs (either current or potential) with first-line, business focused information on any Intellectual Property related issue in Latin America.

If you require a tailor made consultation, please do not hesitate to contact the Helpline. It is free, fast and confidential! Moreover, the IP experts will support you in English, Spanish, French, German or Portuguese.

Having their own business is a yearning for many employees tired of a working life that does not fill anything else than their bank account. They endure frustrations and abuses for a not always decent salary, and feed their dream with the massive DIY-tools that the Internet provides.

More than a few are eventually convinced by the siren calls of tempting opportunities offered by the digital world to exploit an idea in a profitable way with no (or less) tangible means and leap into the void without a second thought.

In order to prevent your savings, hair and other valuable resources to be wiped out by a temporary insanity, we are listing some of the most common Intellectual Property (IP) – related mistakes Start-Ups make too often and that you must avoid if you want to succeed.

1. Poor knowledge of the sector

Working at Disneyland is not the same as visiting it. Likewise, being a (more or less specialized) consumer does not give you a complete picture of the sector. It’s key to know the internal mechanisms.

Given that experience is the best teacher, during the initial stages you’d overcome this deficiency with a deeper prior analysis and better planning.

However, many start-ups embrace adventure without being aware of the frequency or speed of technological developments in the sector, where to find new opportunities for growth or licensed-technology, or what patents are relevant to their products.

In other words, they do not know what Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are needed to operate and its availability.

In regard to the first, sectorial guides (i.e. Machinery and IP in Mercosur and Chile) may help you to identify the relevant IPR to your case and understand why and when should them be protected (i.e. a graphic designer would need to know more about copyrights and trademarks, and pay less or no attention to patents).

In regard to the second, “Out of sight, out of mind” is not a good IP policy, since not knowing the law does not allow you not to obey it. Other’s IPR infringement may take place though you did not want to. You’d better check the trademarks, patents or copyrights owned by your competitors to avoid it.

Thanks to that, you’d not only escape a costly legal proceeding, but you’d have a deeper knowledge on how innovative you are and be able to adapt your commercial strategy.

Performing a prior search is hence indispensable. Unfortunately, you cannot always access comprehensive, reliable, free-of-charge databases that can be easily handled by the average user.

The solution calls for expert advice.

2. Fail to identify IPR and deficient valuation

The idea that inspires a different business’ birth tends to be unique to the father’s eyes.

Nonetheless, just a few know exactly what part can be protected (i.e. technical feature, aesthetical aspect, name, information itself, etc.) and how is it given material form. No, the answer is not always “patent”.

You can also find utility models, designs, trademarks, trade secrets or copyrights, among others. Generally speaking, commercialization of a new product involves many IPR simultaneously. For example, the technology used by Goretex (registered trademark) was patented and the shoes appearing on the catalogues and brochures (protected by copyright) have been previously registered as designs.

Though, if you think that IP is only for technology-based or big companies, you are wrong. Any company has some potential (or current) IPR.

In fact, all companies daily work with intangibles that could be protected as IPR –and, thus, be exploited-, but have no clue about it.

Your company or product name can be registered as a trademark and reach an incredible value. If you don’t believe me, you’d better check Forbes’ rank of the 10 most valuable trademarks.

If you are not aware of what you have in your hands, you can hardly assess its value properly and protect it accordingly. This error can cost you dear if we bear in mind that for most Start-Ups, IPR often represent the most important asset of the company.

3. Bad timing

Sadly, IP protection is way too common done as an after-thought or be left for a later stage.

Thus, many entrepreneurs figure out that the innovative product on which the business project is based cannot be patented anymore, either because:

Since they began to develop it until they finally were ready to launch it, it has been too long and in the meantime other company applied for similar patents (first-to-file wins, remember?); or

They disclosed it (via online or at a trade fair) and it is not new anymore. Many Latin-American countries do provide a grace period for patents, but you need to know which and its requirements.

Those of them who’d rather release the product and protect it depending on its success can be committing IP offenses unknowingly. At best, the product was really innovative and they could face any of the mentioned scenarios.

The same situation may be seen as respect to the trademark. Before naming your company or product, be sure that it is available in your countries of interest (think internationally!). Otherwise, you’d have to choose a new name or be forced to negotiate with the right holder (i.e. the “iphone” trademark dispute between Gradiente and Apple that took place in Brazil was a good example).

Usually, the first to apply for its registration gets the exclusive right (first-to-file principle). But some Latin-American countries have a different regulation. Hence, it is recommended to be assisted by specialized professionals from the beginning and have a case-by-case approach.

On the other hand, there are some opportunities that apparently cannot be missed. However, a trade fair or a meeting with a promising client can be a double-edge sword. You’d better calm down and perform a good search and design -supported by an IP expert preferably- involving all the relevant parts (e.g. designers and marketing team).

4. Ownership: absence of clarity and awareness

Creative processes tend to be convulsed and it’s hard to distinguish who created what and in which proportion (particularly, when ideas arise from brain storming or daily work).

Moreover, when you deal with external providers or a team, many of them do not know who is the real owner of the work. The assignment rules are usually contained in the IP regulation and the employment or project contract. This is why you must pay attention to its content and try to clarify rights and obligations of each part and adapt them to your needs before your start working.

In this regard, many disputes arise when the employee thinks that everything he/she creates belongs to him/her (while it tends to be the other way around).

For this purpose, a well-drafted contract is crucial. Be as much specific as possible and try to think on the most -and less, but harmful- likely scenarios and include a clause for that.

Start-Ups rarely avoid application of knowledge gained from the company they previously worked for or achieved the final result without using its means (although it was during their leisure time).

This is of central importance when you are looking for funding or partnership (ascertaining the correct IPR assignment is one of the key points of any due diligence conducted by investors to give the green light) or when license agreements are signed.

At internal level, it is equally important that the rest of the company members know the scope of the IPR they work with (i.e. what countries are covered, can it be modified for an online campaign, is there a limit to the number of licenses, what happens with any improvement on it). For-profit use of open source technology or under for personal use only license; inclusion of copyright-protected works without permission in catalogues or social networks; or utilization of patented technology without realizing it, are some of the most common errors and can be prevented with an active IP awareness policy by trainings like those provided by the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk.

5. Lack of (or improvised) protection strategy

The absence of a clear short/medium term IP strategy is a serious handicap to the business project’s success –or event survival-. It’s impossible to identify the needed tools to achieve the objectives if they are not well defined.

Moreover, many entrepreneurs underestimate the importance of own and other’s IPR or overrate the power of a registered IPR (patents to not enforce themselves automatically: you have to negotiate with infringers or start legal actions). Additionally, some businessmen forget that IPR also entail certain obligations (i.e. trademarks’ obligation use was set to avoid defensive registrations in many Latin-American countries).

As a result, they find themselves:

with weak IPR to save money in legal assistance

with IPR that they don’t use; or

forced to request lawyer’s support to solve a non-registration related problem

Notwithstanding, the vast majority of the mentioned mistakes so far can be prevented with correct planning.

Or, to put in other way, you have to invest in IP and avoid relying upon improvisation.

Do not forget that the IP strategy must be aligned with the business strategy (and not vice versa). Short, medium and long term must be taken into account, too; and plans must be regularly updated and suited to change.

6. Who needs a lawyer?

You can find many infinite templates, examples and tutorials on how to elaborate your own agreements across the Internet. As a matter of fact, it is really tempting to take four of them and adapt them to your case –at high risk of copy-paste abuse-.

The so termed Frankenstein effect is one of the most frequent errors, given the high cost of legal assistance and low awareness of the importance of a well-drafted contract (in particular when no problem arose).

It must be however noted that IP is a very complex matter, that varies a lot from country to country, and that an in-house lawyer (if the company has one) -that already deals with tax or sales legal issues- can hardly ensure a high level of efficiency.

Although most of the entrepreneurs are used to do it all by themselves, they must know their limits, be wise and delegate to experts (when needed).

Do not forget that if you trust a lawyer from the beginning, you can save a lot of money (fixing the mess created can be two or three times more expensive).

Indeed, the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk was created in response to all those EU SMEs that want (and must) to know more about IP and how to use it as a profitable business tool, in particular when they operate in Latin America –or are intending to do it-.

Moreover, some of the mentioned trainings (and much more) are explained in depth in the training sessions they organize (i.e. Start-Ups in Latin America: Most Common IP errors).

Nonetheless, when the problem you have is beyond your knowledge –gained thanks to the E-learning documents and trainings offered by the Helpdesk-, you could always use the Helpline. All any of its services, it is free-of-charge and totally confidential.

Furthermore, it is available in 5 different languages (English, Spanish, French, German and Portuguese) and the experts provide first-line assistance within 3 working days.

The China, Latin America and South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesks are holding their Annual Stakeholder Meeting in Brussels on the 4th of April 2017. Joining the three regional Helpdesks as a co-organiser is Business Beyond Borders (BBB), an EU-funded initiative supporting businesses and clusters when attending international trade fairs around the world.

As a valued partner and user of the Helpdesk services, we are delighted to invite you to this event where you will hear about our latest developments, success stories and planned activities for 2017. To register and access the detailed agenda, please click here.

The event will include the participation of complementary key EU initiatives that are all supporting EU SMEs in their internationalisation efforts, as well as various intermediaries and companies. They will all contribute to the interactive panel- and roundtable discussions and will be available for the matchmaking session.

Similar to previous editions, the meeting will be a key opportunity to have your say on the services of the Helpdesks and join discussions on what can be done towards its continuous improvement in terms of support to businesses and collaboration with partner organisations and experts.

THE MATCHMAKING SESSION

The Matchmaking Session will take place at the end of the Annual Stakeholder Meeting place on the 4thof April from 15.00pm – 17.00pm. The dedicated area is located in the premises of the European Economic and Social Committee – Rue Belliard 99-101, 1000 Brussels.

It will be a great opportunity to interact with a wide variety of stakeholders of pertinence to IPR and SME internationalisation. As a company you will get the chance to have your questions answered by relevant experts.

Attendees will include European SMEs with an interest in expanding their business abroad as well as companies already established in, or working with business entities overseas with specific focus on China, Latin America and South East Asia. The presence of business support organisations and other EU supported schemes focusing on internationalisation, makes this an event you simply cannot miss!

Following the Matchmaking Session there will be a Networking Cocktail, to conclude the day.

“Chile has built a balanced property system that seeks to protect the interests of creators and innovators, as well as users and society as a whole,” says Martin Correa, Head of the Intellectual Property Department of the General Directorate of International Economic Relations (Direcon) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Department coordinates and conveys Chile’s position on international negotiations before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Intellectual Property is precisely the focus of the Latin America Intellectual Property SME Helpdesk project, which belongs to the Directorate General for Research and Innovation (COSME Program) of the European Union. The Eurochile Foundation is a partner of this project.

The subject is highly relevant, since a wider knowledge and respect for intellectual property rights leads to improved opportunities for Chilean companies.

“Today, IP has been gaining importance, since it has been proven that it may be an intangible with a significant economic potential not only for consolidated and larger companies, but also for small and medium enterprises. In this sense, knowing the value of IP enables SMEs to value their trademarks and generate spin-offs when granting licenses,” states Correa.

“Additionally, having an invention patent, for example, can be a plus when applying for loans to continue the development of an SME or even for expanding. Finally, IP can encourage the sale of traditional niche products by granting geographical indications. They create communities among small producers of the same product by recognizing its added value. As you can see, being aware and knowing the economic potential of IP can allow SMEs to make better business decisions and to benefit from the profits IP can generate,” he adds.

– What is the state of Intellectual Property protection in Chile?

“The country has made great strides in recent years, introducing major changes to the intellectual property system, such as the enactment of Law 17,336 on Intellectual Property, the reform of Law 19,039 on Industrial Property and the creation of the National Industrial Property Institute (Inapi, in Spanish). There has also been progress in creating tools to bring people closer to IP through programs such as the origin seal and Inapi Proyecta, as well as in boosting the role of the intellectual rights keeper belonging to the Chilean Libraries, Archives and Museums Board (Dibam, in Spanish).”

– What are the pending issues in this regard?

“Chile has a strong intellectual property system with clear and strict rules, comparable to the standards of major international institutions that cover these issues, such as the WTO and the WIPO. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that new technologies and recent innovations in the digital environment pose new challenges not only for Chile, but for the international community. It should address the interaction between IP and these new developments.”

– What is Chile’s level of compliance regarding international agreements and obligations on this matter?

“Chile has fulfilled its international obligations on intellectual property. In this sense, the current institutional framework in Chile reflects the standards described in our free trade agreements (FTA). It even went beyond what was agreed on the FTAs. However, there are still some issues to be addressed internally, derived mainly from the FTA with the US. One example is complying with technological protection measures linked to copyright, which has not been addressed yet. Therefore, Direcon’s efforts have been instrumental in coordinating thematic working tables to address this issue internally in the near future.”

– What are the most common problems for a foreign company wishing to do business with Chile, in terms of IP?

“Even though the rules on intellectual property in Chile are relatively similar to those in most developed countries, there are some differences that must be taken into consideration when doing business. They have to do with the territorial nature of IP. In this regard, it is important to be aware of certain basics, such as the civilian origin of Chile’s legal tradition and the balance of our system when pondering the interests of creators and innovators, and the interests of users and society as a whole. They differ in each country. Therefore, it is indispensable to learn about the system as a whole in order to enjoy the economic benefits of IP in all its dimensions.”

When an SME wants to register an IPR in different countries there are two alternatives, to apply for the IPR before each national office or to use one of the WIPO international registration systems, namely Madrid System (trademarks), Patent Cooperation Treaty (patents) and Hague System (Designs).

In this post we are going to explain how Madrid System can be a useful tool for EU SMEs that aim to protect their trademarks abroad, benefiting from simpler and cost-effective proceedings.

The Madrid System is not implemented in most Latin American countries. Nevertheless, this situation is expected to change in the near future, therefore EU companies that want to internationalise to Latin America may be interested in registering its trademark through Madrid System on the current members (Colombia, Cuba and Mexico) and hopefully, extend the protection to further members once them enter into the system.

What is Madrid System?

Madrid System is the WIPO International Trademark Registration system governed by the Madrid Protocol and Agreement. It allows trademark applicants to apply for registration in various countries simultaneously with a single application.

Who can benefit from the system?

Any national or company from a Member State of the Protocol or the Agreement. All EU Member States have ratified the Protocol.

In which Latin American countries could I apply from protection through Madrid System?

Only a few Latin American countries (Colombia, Cuba and Mexico) are members of the Madrid System.

How does it work?

EU applicants can request an International Trademark Registration before their own national IP office or the EUIPO (Office of Origin). The International application must be based on a prior trademark application or registration (both EU and national trademarks are accepted).

Thereafter the Office of Origin submits the application to WIPO, that performs the formal examination, publishes it on the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, and send it to each national IP office where the applicant want to protect the trademark (Designated Party).

IMPORTANT! Each national office is entitled to perform the substantive examination according to its internal regulation and to reject or register the trademark within 12 months (Cuba) or 18 months (Colombia and Mexico). In case of third parties oppositions, the term in Colombia to reject the trademark might be extended.

Once the trademark is registered in all or some of the countries the renewal and modifications are centralised by WIPO and you can manage it as a single registration.

How much does it cost?

It strongly depends on the number of countries, the type of trademark and the number of classes for which protection is sough.

Madrid applicants may benefit from certain advantages over those that prefer to register on a country-by-country basis:

The trademark is applied for in a single language: English, Spanish or French, without the need of further translations.

Applicants benefit from a simplified application proceeding instead filing a bundle of applications before each national office.

Each due fee is paid in a single currency (Swiss francs) and a single payment.

Any modification, renewal or transfer can be done directly before WIPO with effects in all Designated Parties.

As a general rule, it is not mandatory to appoint and pay a representative on each Designated Party except in certain cases (e.g. the trademark is opposed)

Once registered, it is possible to extend the International Trademark protection to other countries by means of subsequent designations. This is very useful if the company wants to enter into new markets or if a new Latin American country in which the SME operates enters Madrid System.

About Your LATAM FlagshIP

The Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk team proudly welcomes you to its brand new blog, in which you will find updated information concerning Intellectual Property Rights in Latin America, as well as other interesting information about SMEs, Internationalization, R&D or Innovation.

Implemented by

The Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk is a free service for SMEs which provides practical, objective and factual information about Intellectual Property Rights in Latin America. The services are not of a legal or advisory nature and no responsibility is accepted for the results of any actions made on the basis of its services. The content and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission and/or the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises or any other body of the European Union.

Before taking specific actions in relation to IPR protection or enforcement all customers are advised to seek independent advice. Neither the European Commission nor the Agency may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein.
Our Privacy Policy